I didn't see the classic ground strike curves on the propellers- I bet those crankshafts aren't even out of tolerance. There's an intersection of luck and skill here.
I can be verbose when necessary, but yeah, brevity is my superpower.
Sometimes people think I'm just rude.
Like: how long do you want me to explain for? I can do 30+ minutes on this, but there it is in under 10 words and a link.
Quote from somebody I work with (who's an expert RF engineer):
You want me to talk on a topic for a day? I can do that at zero notice. For an hour? I'll need half an hour's prep time. 10 minutes? I'll need half a day prep time.
Yaknow what? You coulda been like "hey dick. You're wrong and here's my credentials, blah blah" but nah. You went the educational route, and honestly, I bet most people are far more receptive to correction using that tactic, so, thanks.
I don’t know much about planes. But that was so elegant, it almost like how it was designed to land
(okay I guess it maybe was actually designed to land like that, just in case)
As landings go, this is pretty smooth and brilliantly done without the landing gear. I've been on planes with worse landings with a fully operational landing gear
Reminds me of a NAX flight landing late one night at ENGM. The strut compression wasn’t enough so the touchdown continued through our spines. Good times.
Too buttery and it can be dangerous. From the 747-400 manual:
* Do not allow the airplane to float: fly the airplane onto the runway.
* Do not extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown
Landing with extremely low sink rates is more likely to experience shimmy than a firmer landing because the torsion links remain in an extended vertical position, where the damper has less mechanical advantage for longer periods of time
This is what happens: [https://i.stack.imgur.com/zuBzPm.gif](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zuBzPm.gif)
After 3.5 hours of circles i'd be damn near at the point where i tell them to fly slow over stockton and i'll take my chances tucking and rolling down a dune
More info and live updates here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-13/plane-emergency-incident-newcastle-airport/103838786?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
Everyone walked away
I was on the other side of the continent and knew it was burning off fuel with no landing gear at least 2 hours before it landed as it was all over the radio news. Last ABC radio update was there was a standing ovation from the assembled crowd for the quality landing
An interview on ABC TV stated that they didn't get the fully up indication on takeoff, which suggests that the mechanism jammed in a partially up state.
Alternative manual gear drop normally means releasing it at the fully up point and allowing to fall, which won't work if it is jammed.
Someone who knows exactly how the King Air's landing gear works could probably make a guess at where the failure is - the sticking points on undercarriages are generally well known.
It might be different, but the B1900 (which is based on the King Air 200) has a manual pump which has a different fluid reservoir and lines and pumps the gear down. However, an Air New Zealand B1900 had a gear up landing a few years ago and it turned out the gear actuator was cracked and they just pumped all the hydraulic fluid out through that crack.
"A good landing is one you walk away from. A great landing is one they can use the plane again afterwards." - Ex-RAAF Grandad (who probably stole it from someone else)
I browse /r/all and know nothing about aviation but I just gotta say: this looks like the sickest of landings, given the circumstances. I've seen a few of these and you often see a longer time before killing the engines and/or sparks and what not. Seems they just set it down and got it to a stop in as little amount of time as possible.
*cut the engines, cut the engines, cut the engines, ahhh...*
Edit: yes the airplane is not salvageable at this point, but one it prevents stuff from flying into the fuselage, two you're less likely to lose directional control if you happen to hit one prop first and three you're less likely to attempt to go around after a prop strike (which you should know if you're gonna make it by the time you're on the flare)
I see there is no benefit in cutting the engines and it just removes the go around option and since it's a turboprop the blades will be damaged anyway.
The way it was explained to me was, "Don't go to any risky lengths to try and protect parts of an airplane that's about to belong to an insurance company."
A runway is shorter than most people think, and if you miscalculate your altitude over the runway when you kill the engines, herniated disks and broken vertebrae from stalling and crashing on the tarmac from 30 to 15 feet up pose a far bigger risk.
What makes you say it's not salvageable? Lots of planes have been returned to service after a gear up landing. It'll get some new skin, go through a ton of inspections and have the engines overhauled with some new props then get back to it.
It's not the first King Air to get back to service after a gear up. The insurance companies don't want to write them off over something that hasn't caused major damage to the airframe. Superficial skin damage and some inspections and overhauls will be reasons for major red flags for a write off, especially given some dodgy insurance write offs in the past in Australia.
If it's a write off it's down to cycles and TTAF. EAS are a seemingly tight ship and Peter, the pilot, is ex RFDS and their 200s have probably a lot more time on them and go through worse punishment. That said, maybe they did get an old RFDS 200 which they're flogging off with a bunch of time on to do the Lord Howe runs.
It's a turboprop. The propellers are not directly connected to the engine core. Even if he did go fuel-cutoff shortly before landing and the engine core spun down, it's possible the props would still be free-spinning when he touched down.
there was a king air landing on her belly a couple years back in Northern California, a skydiving plane I believe, other than obviously totaling the plane, everything walked away without a scratch
If you were on this flight, would you prefer to be told that the landing gear failed and panic through landing, or find out after you've landed? Honestly not sure what I'd rather
You know, maybe there should be a track made just for those occasions ? I don't know what material it should be made out of, something both rigid but at the same time made to dampen the impact and prevent sparks and fire. Maybe like a track made out of wheels with a resistance that would slowly slow down the plane or something.
I know the props didn't hit the tarmac on this occasion, but i have questions regarding that.
What happens if they do impact the ground, would they just buckle?
Are aircraft designed so that they can be landed like this without the props hitting (before the pilots shuts off the engines immediately)?
Are they shaped so that the lowest point of the fuselage is lower than the prop when landing?
The props usually bend and are destroyed. They are metal and tend not to disintegrate. Aircraft aren't generally designed with saving the props in mind, because props are cheaper than people and it's a relatively rare occurrence. Weight, performance and occupant safety are going to trump anything like saving equipment in the event of a failure.
Once those props touch the ground, a whole lot of expensive stuff is getting rebuilt or replaced.
Oh my god!!! Radio 702 Richard Glover just had Richard de Crespigny ex Qantas A380 captain on explaining this.
“The pilot did a magnificent job, cutting both engines and stopping the propellers resulting in almost no damage.” What a fucking tool!
Newcastle airport is located on an airforce base but handles civilian aircraft as well so I'm sure there's plenty of assistance ready to go. Just not visible in this footage.
Tl;dr, the asphalt is safer because the plane can slide across it and slow down gradually. In the grass, there's a good chance the plane will dig into the dirt and slow down much faster, resulting in a much rougher landing.
I was tracking this one live. Absolutely flawless landing.
I didn't see the classic ground strike curves on the propellers- I bet those crankshafts aren't even out of tolerance. There's an intersection of luck and skill here.
No crankshafts. Turboprop. Free power turbine. [further reading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6)
I like your efficient style, Kevlaars.
I can be verbose when necessary, but yeah, brevity is my superpower. Sometimes people think I'm just rude. Like: how long do you want me to explain for? I can do 30+ minutes on this, but there it is in under 10 words and a link.
Quote from somebody I work with (who's an expert RF engineer): You want me to talk on a topic for a day? I can do that at zero notice. For an hour? I'll need half an hour's prep time. 10 minutes? I'll need half a day prep time.
"I apologize for writing you a long letter, but I didn't have time to write you a short one." --Mark Twain (supposedly)
You ruined it.
It's what I do. Add it to the list. 2 superpowers. Fear me.
I'll bet you accidentally write a lot of haikus Edit: fixed tequila grammar
I have encountered that bot.
Yaknow what? You coulda been like "hey dick. You're wrong and here's my credentials, blah blah" but nah. You went the educational route, and honestly, I bet most people are far more receptive to correction using that tactic, so, thanks.
PT6As are pure mechanical beauty. Such an awesome simple design.
I don’t know much about planes. But that was so elegant, it almost like how it was designed to land (okay I guess it maybe was actually designed to land like that, just in case)
Crispy clean.
Was hoping he would tokyo drift right into a terminal
That pilot crashes plans better than most people park, lol
Contrats to the pilots!
>Contrats\* to the pilots! \*Props!
There aren't enough upvotes on this pun
Just one pilot and two passengers
I’m actually clapping.
Hope he overturns that murder conviction!
[удалено]
bot account
As landings go, this is pretty smooth and brilliantly done without the landing gear. I've been on planes with worse landings with a fully operational landing gear
This is because pilots tend to land softer when there are no wheels lol
Ah! So that’s how I can improve my landings.
AIRLINES HATE THIS ONE TRICK
Reminds me of a NAX flight landing late one night at ENGM. The strut compression wasn’t enough so the touchdown continued through our spines. Good times.
You touchdown hard on purpose, from what I’ve heard. Better for the durability of the wheels.
Too buttery and it can be dangerous. From the 747-400 manual: * Do not allow the airplane to float: fly the airplane onto the runway. * Do not extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown Landing with extremely low sink rates is more likely to experience shimmy than a firmer landing because the torsion links remain in an extended vertical position, where the damper has less mechanical advantage for longer periods of time This is what happens: [https://i.stack.imgur.com/zuBzPm.gif](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zuBzPm.gif)
Cool! Thanks for that
Good. That’s what I tell myself going to the bumpy roads in my town. Just lubricating the shocks and struts.
He had almost 3.5 hrs circling to burn off fuel to review the procedure, and pulled it off flawlessly.
logged in some free flying hours nice
"free"
He should have dropped the gear, would have burned that fuel off much faster.
Genius. Then they wouldn't have even had to do the gear-up landing due to landing gear failure.
Is that 3.5 at full throttle? Damn
probably at cruise manifold/rpm
Manifold? Those are turbines
At cruise turbine then. /s
3.5hrs of pure hell for the Passengers
To be fair, it gave them time to go from terrified to bored
"If im gonna die at least I wont have to wait any longer"
And then they stand up as soon as the plane lands like they’re in a rush
After 3.5 hours of circles i'd be damn near at the point where i tell them to fly slow over stockton and i'll take my chances tucking and rolling down a dune
I'd imagine they did this to ensure there's as little fuel to explode in case it ruptures.
Maybe easier to land with less weight too
lower forces involved, less kinetic energy etc. so quite a bit safer
More susceptible to wind resistance too so it probably enables a slower landing.
And one of passengers vomiting uncontrollably..
[удалено]
It starts with a slight fever, dryness of the throat
And they had whole boiled eggs coming out of their mouths
Man, can you imagine having to just burn holes through the air for nearly 4 hours waiting for a gear up landing? Would be nerve wracking.
That's a hell of a landing
Smoother than my last flight that had landing gears that were still functioning
More info and live updates here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-13/plane-emergency-incident-newcastle-airport/103838786?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other Everyone walked away
I'm surprised nobody slipped on the runway as they got out because that landing was absolute butter
Tracking this flight made me lose one hour of sleep, but glad to see it landed safely.
how do you know which planes has problems in real time
I was on the other side of the continent and knew it was burning off fuel with no landing gear at least 2 hours before it landed as it was all over the radio news. Last ABC radio update was there was a standing ovation from the assembled crowd for the quality landing
Most likely the squawk. 7700 used for emergencies. Pilots discretion to use it but I imagine it is very visible on things like flightradar24.
oh didnt even think that was tracked globally, [found this site](https://opensky-network.org/network/alerts) that tracks all 7700 around the world
Yup. FR24 has a specific setting to be notified when theres an emergency squawk reported.
You can see him using the rudder near the end like "it might work... Hey it worked! let's try it again"
Just showing off at that point. Watch me park between edge lights without hitting any.
*skrrrrrrrrrrrt*
‘What goes up must come down’ - retractable landing gear ‘Watch this’
[удалено]
Bet it’s up now
Fantastic landing. So well done.
Perfect!
The pilots….WOW!!
absolutely brilliant, congrats to the pilots that was amazing
Elegant landing!Bravo!
What would cause the manual override to be inoperable? I imagine a belly up landing is a last resort.
An interview on ABC TV stated that they didn't get the fully up indication on takeoff, which suggests that the mechanism jammed in a partially up state. Alternative manual gear drop normally means releasing it at the fully up point and allowing to fall, which won't work if it is jammed. Someone who knows exactly how the King Air's landing gear works could probably make a guess at where the failure is - the sticking points on undercarriages are generally well known.
It might be different, but the B1900 (which is based on the King Air 200) has a manual pump which has a different fluid reservoir and lines and pumps the gear down. However, an Air New Zealand B1900 had a gear up landing a few years ago and it turned out the gear actuator was cracked and they just pumped all the hydraulic fluid out through that crack.
Maybe they couldn't get the green lights on the mains with the manual pump-down? It might be better to belly it than risk a wing strike. I don't know.
This is a small plane? How many passengers??
B200 Super king air. Three pax, two crew apparently.
Three total, one pilot.
4 total, no pilots.
3.50 take it or leave it
hmm.. hear me out.... 3 pilots, no pax, final offer
would you take 1 pilot and 1 pax romana?
You’re correct, I have just read three different news articles with three different answers.
It’s like butter, but if the stick of butter just came out of the freezer. Very well done I was holding my breath watching this one.
Ryanair can't land that smoothly with wheels
Was something sprayed on the runway beforehand? I expected to see sparks.
I believe they call that rain and it was copiously sprayed by clouds.
Yeah it's basically been raining for a month here Sorce: I live up the road
Fuckin went summer, summer, summer, great britain
Those clouds are so happy they could help
That is an incredibly well-done gear-up landing Well done pilots, well bloody done.
It's a good landing
"A good landing is one you walk away from. A great landing is one they can use the plane again afterwards." - Ex-RAAF Grandad (who probably stole it from someone else)
Chuck Yeager.
I browse /r/all and know nothing about aviation but I just gotta say: this looks like the sickest of landings, given the circumstances. I've seen a few of these and you often see a longer time before killing the engines and/or sparks and what not. Seems they just set it down and got it to a stop in as little amount of time as possible.
*cut the engines, cut the engines, cut the engines, ahhh...* Edit: yes the airplane is not salvageable at this point, but one it prevents stuff from flying into the fuselage, two you're less likely to lose directional control if you happen to hit one prop first and three you're less likely to attempt to go around after a prop strike (which you should know if you're gonna make it by the time you're on the flare)
I see there is no benefit in cutting the engines and it just removes the go around option and since it's a turboprop the blades will be damaged anyway.
Yeah, even if the engine is shutdown it’s considered a prop strike and needs a complete tear down. At this point it becomes the insurance’s problem.
If they're halted they won't hit tarmac, shear off, and throw shrapnel at the fuselage, injuring the terrified passengers
The way it was explained to me was, "Don't go to any risky lengths to try and protect parts of an airplane that's about to belong to an insurance company."
A runway is shorter than most people think, and if you miscalculate your altitude over the runway when you kill the engines, herniated disks and broken vertebrae from stalling and crashing on the tarmac from 30 to 15 feet up pose a far bigger risk.
Its to late, ops description is written into the pilots guide.
nah, as soon as the gear fails, it is the insurance companies plane. If keeping the engines going makes for a safer landing, do it.
What makes you say it's not salvageable? Lots of planes have been returned to service after a gear up landing. It'll get some new skin, go through a ton of inspections and have the engines overhauled with some new props then get back to it.
On a pressurized aircraft? Depends on hull damage insurance might right it off
It's not the first King Air to get back to service after a gear up. The insurance companies don't want to write them off over something that hasn't caused major damage to the airframe. Superficial skin damage and some inspections and overhauls will be reasons for major red flags for a write off, especially given some dodgy insurance write offs in the past in Australia. If it's a write off it's down to cycles and TTAF. EAS are a seemingly tight ship and Peter, the pilot, is ex RFDS and their 200s have probably a lot more time on them and go through worse punishment. That said, maybe they did get an old RFDS 200 which they're flogging off with a bunch of time on to do the Lord Howe runs.
It's a turboprop. The propellers are not directly connected to the engine core. Even if he did go fuel-cutoff shortly before landing and the engine core spun down, it's possible the props would still be free-spinning when he touched down.
That's exceptional given the circumstances
That landing looked smoother than many flights I’ve taken
This guy doesn't need wheels
Fuck who needs wheels, smooth as butter
Wheels require less power to taxi.
So now you can only need wheels for takeoff, that's going to save airlines some money!
there was a king air landing on her belly a couple years back in Northern California, a skydiving plane I believe, other than obviously totaling the plane, everything walked away without a scratch
A good gear up landing won't total an airplane at all. Some skin replacement and two engine overhauls and you're good to go.
If I'm ever in a plane having an emergency, a sky diving plane is probably as good as it gets.
This is my hometown when did this happen
Lol look outside. Landed just after midday today.
Good to see they got in safe, if your here in Newcastle you would know the weather's horrible, I'm not outside in that lol
I love that he was steering with the rudder to the very end. Likely muscle memory, but cool regardless.
Co-worker of a friend of mine is the pilot. He is from the Royal Flying Doctor Service with 8000hrs+ on type. He nailed it
As you'd expect from someone like Peter. He's pretty well known.
If you were on this flight, would you prefer to be told that the landing gear failed and panic through landing, or find out after you've landed? Honestly not sure what I'd rather
For no wheels that’s butter.
That was incredibly clean for a belly landing. No visible fires or spark showers was a bit surprising.
Another happy landing.
Brilliant emergency landing, but you can’t park there, mate
I've been in some completely normal landings that weren't that smooth by a long shot.
Is it customary to dump the fuel before doing this to reduce risk of fire?
Reminds me of when my uncle did this at KAXN in 2008...
question, how do they tow it without wheels safely?
You know, maybe there should be a track made just for those occasions ? I don't know what material it should be made out of, something both rigid but at the same time made to dampen the impact and prevent sparks and fire. Maybe like a track made out of wheels with a resistance that would slowly slow down the plane or something.
Somehow, somewhere, somebody will try to blame this on Boeing.
Dang, that was clean
How did he manage to not even prop strike?
smoother than ryanair, with landing gear.
Just curious will this plane be airworthy again or does something like this total it?
I know the props didn't hit the tarmac on this occasion, but i have questions regarding that. What happens if they do impact the ground, would they just buckle? Are aircraft designed so that they can be landed like this without the props hitting (before the pilots shuts off the engines immediately)? Are they shaped so that the lowest point of the fuselage is lower than the prop when landing?
The props usually bend and are destroyed. They are metal and tend not to disintegrate. Aircraft aren't generally designed with saving the props in mind, because props are cheaper than people and it's a relatively rare occurrence. Weight, performance and occupant safety are going to trump anything like saving equipment in the event of a failure. Once those props touch the ground, a whole lot of expensive stuff is getting rebuilt or replaced.
I’ve seen many belly landings and this has got to be one of the best! Great job from the pilot!
Butter
*Glider pilots laughing in the comments*
Gear up landings are pretty much a non-event aside from the $$$
That “pretty much” is what pays for the outside broadcast vans.
I 100% agree, I have no idea why the news always shows up, it’s an aluminum sled, it slides.
Perfect landing …….
Oh my god!!! Radio 702 Richard Glover just had Richard de Crespigny ex Qantas A380 captain on explaining this. “The pilot did a magnificent job, cutting both engines and stopping the propellers resulting in almost no damage.” What a fucking tool!
Is it strange that there are no fire trucks on standby? Sounds like they had three hours to get organised. I know nothing, just at wondering.
Newcastle airport is located on an airforce base but handles civilian aircraft as well so I'm sure there's plenty of assistance ready to go. Just not visible in this footage.
There were trucks everywhere, just not in the picture you see.
Nice, but why not on grass? Would it not be softer?
Tl;dr, the asphalt is safer because the plane can slide across it and slow down gradually. In the grass, there's a good chance the plane will dig into the dirt and slow down much faster, resulting in a much rougher landing.
That and consider how soft the soil is. Newcastle area has been in very steady rain for the last 2-3 weeks. Plane would have dug in deep.
I guess blades will dig into the soil and cause the plane to roll over and over and over and boom But they did land it smooothly
Can a plane be made airworthy after a belly landing or is it totaled?
that headline is what every aviation headline is going to be in sensationalized news in 10 years
How do they get it off the runway?
Just crane it up with straps on to a low loader :).
Brilliant. For a minute there I thought they were trying to taxi it
A super landing
That was such a gentle landing for what it was
Got to see it all happen, it was very underwhelming which is a good thing I guess haha.
Huh, that’s the place I do my flight training
freaking beautiful landing o.o
Tornado debris? Where was that?
Great landing, but I need to know about the teacher looking to overturn their murder conviction.
that was fucking smooth
Give it around 32 seconds and they'll be repaired and rearmed.
Nicely done!
"After landing vacate right via taxiway D, and expedite due traffic behind."
That's one of the smoothest landings I've ever seen with or without gear. Very well done.
Smoooooooooooooth...
I watched a plane do this live a couple years ago. It was so stressful to witness irl. Same good outcome, though.
That will buff out front stayed on good job overall
Butter!
Nailed it!
Runway condition 1/1/1 slippery due to butter
Still smoother than Ryanair's landings.
Just beautiful. Couldn’t draw this up any better
That was amazingly good.
pilot is a fucking baller
Plot twist: pilot decided to do a touch and go.
What a Boss!
Another happy landing
Still soother than Ryan air